Short answer. Yes. Article 1748 allows it: an agreement limiting a common carrier's liability for delay on account of strikes or riots is valid. But the permission is narrow. It covers delay only — not loss of or damage to the goods — and only delay traceable to a strike or riot, not delay from a cause the carrier could have prevented.
What the law says
for delay on account of strikes or riots is valid
Civil Code, Article 1748 — Limitation for Strikes/Riots Valid. Read the full provision →
A specific, narrow permission
The general rule is that a common carrier cannot contract its way out of the diligence the law demands. Article 1748 is a deliberate exception to that, and a small one: an agreement limiting the common carrier's liability for delay on account of strikes or riots is valid. Read the sentence closely, because every word limits it. It is about delay, not loss or destruction; it is about delay caused by strikes or riots, not delay in general; and it merely limits liability rather than wiping it out. A clause that tried to stretch past those boundaries would not draw its validity from this article.
Why delay from a strike is treated differently
The exception makes sense against the background of what a strike or riot is: a disruption the carrier often cannot prevent and did not cause, yet which can hold up a shipment for days. The law lets the carrier and the shipper agree in advance on how the risk of that particular kind of delay is shared, rather than leaving the carrier exposed to the full consequences of an event outside its control. It is a risk-allocation tool for a defined hazard. Note that it limits liability for the delay; it does not license the carrier to be careless with the goods while the delay lasts.
What the clause does not touch
The most common mistake is to read a strikes-and-riots clause as a general shield. It is not. If the goods themselves are lost, destroyed or damaged, this article says nothing — that liability is still governed by the carrier's duty of extraordinary diligence, and a limitation of it has to satisfy the separate rules the Code sets for limiting liability over the goods. And if the delay came from something else — a mechanical breakdown, poor scheduling, a driver who simply did not show — the strike-or-riot permission does not apply, because the delay was not on account of a strike or riot at all.
What decides your case
Because the article turns entirely on cause, that is where a dispute will be won or lost. Two facts matter above all: what your contract of carriage or bill of lading actually says about delay, and what genuinely caused the delay you suffered. A carrier relying on the clause has to show the delay really was on account of a strike or riot; if it cannot, the limitation gives it nothing. So keep the shipment documents, note the promised and actual delivery dates, and gather whatever shows what was happening on the route when your goods were held up.